>> >> Nalini, why don't you (the consortium) define the standard, then? >> >> > Indeed, if a “TLS13-visibility” standard has to be defined, it would make >> > sense for the consortium (rather than the TLS WG) to define it. >> >> In fact, my mistake that was caught by Martin is exactly the reason that we >> want the experts in the TLS WG to review the document. > > Doesn’t IETF have a liaison process that is used to work with other standards > bodies? > And the bigger question, since the ask is essentially for a multi-party > security protocol: Is TLS WG the right place to discuss this?
In my experience, technical review via the liaison process does not offer the same quality as an IETF WG. I hope that your "bigger" question is clearly answered at the meeting next week. Russ
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
